worried about constitutional rights?

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-26-2003
worried about constitutional rights?
12
Mon, 10-06-2008 - 1:45pm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081006/ap_on_el_pr/palin

"When reporters tried to leave the designated press area and head to where the crowd was seated, an escort would dart out, confront him or her and say, "Can I help you?" and turn the person around, Times staff writer Eileen Schulte wrote on the paper's Web site. When one reporter asked an escort, who would not give her name, why the press wasn't allowed to mingle, she said that in the past, negative things had been written, Schulte reported."

negative things?

just in case you are fuzzy on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/press.htm

"Although a cherished right of the people, freedom of the press is different from other liberties of the people in that it is both individual and institutional. It applies not just to a single person's right to publish ideas, but also to the right of print and broadcast media to express political views and to cover and publish news. A free press is, therefore, one of the foundations of a democratic society, and as Walter Lippmann, the 20th-century American columnist, wrote, "A free press is not a privilege, but an organic necessity in a great society." Indeed, as society has grown increasingly complex, people rely more and more on newspapers, radio, and television to keep abreast with world news, opinion, and political ideas. One sign of the importance of a free press is that when antidemocratic forces take over a country, their first act is often to muzzle the press."

muzzle?

Bea

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 10-06-2008 - 2:02pm
<

muzzle?>>


Well, if not muzzle then redirect back to their pen.

 


 


I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-16-2004
Mon, 10-06-2008 - 11:26pm
That is VERY worrisome.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-26-2003
Mon, 10-06-2008 - 11:37pm

but if i read it right, it wasn't about keeping reporters from Palin. it was about keeping reporters from interviewing people in the audience. am i wrong?

if we were talking about Britney Spears having an entourage to keep her away from paparazzi then I don't care: she's not running to be my VP. but if we are talking about a candidate who wants our votes in order to represent our interests, then she shouldn't be hiding. nor should she be keeping her audience from expressing opinions.

Bea

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-04-2008
Tue, 10-07-2008 - 2:23pm

I like my freedom....and I will not vote for any radical=socialist that lead to communist!


Also, I could not stand the worry about my children subjected to that kind of regime knowing I was part of it and not fighting to prevent it.


This is not only for four years. Radicalism=socialism are removed only with a civil war.


Do you want your children subjected to that kind of hell?

Avatar for mommastacie
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-20-2003
Tue, 10-07-2008 - 2:37pm

"regime" wow. You really do live in fear doncha?

And as for socialism.. Bush has us heading that way anyhow.. did you know the only Insurance NOT government owned right now is Healthcare insurance. (which, because I know you'll bring it up.. Obama's plan is not for the gov't to take over healthcare.. it's to force the HMOs to make it more affordable so everyone can get it. The gov't will regulate it, not own it.) And don't get me started on wiretapping & losing our rights.


border=0>


Other places you can find me:

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-10-2003
Tue, 10-07-2008 - 2:50pm

Not worth responding to.


Photobucket Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket




Edited 10/7/2008 3:03 pm ET by carketch

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-26-2003
Wed, 10-08-2008 - 6:40am

uhhh ... not following the argument clearly.

<>

so if McCain-Palin muzzle the press, they would be cast as antidemocratic which would mean they suppress human rights which would mean they become like Russia, Sri Lanka, Myanmar (Burma), North Korea and China (states that control the press) which means they are socialist.

suppress free press=suppress human rights=socialist=communist

and if they are elected, it will take a civil war to oust them.

am i correct?

Bea

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2008
Wed, 10-08-2008 - 9:24am

I keep waiting for you to provide the slightest shred of evidence that an Obama presidence will lead to communism, dictatorships, loss of voting rights, radicalism-socialism, civil war or "that kind of hell".


Free speech certainly means you are able to make any wild-ass claim you wish to make.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-05-2008
Wed, 10-08-2008 - 9:57am

I understand that you value and repsect your freedom and you believe that voting for Barack Obama will endanger that.


How do you feel about the Patriot Act?

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-01-2008
Wed, 10-08-2008 - 12:02pm

>>but if i read it right, it wasn't about keeping reporters from Palin. it was about keeping reporters from interviewing people in the audience. am i wrong?

This has happened in other situations as well, including during Obama's and Hillary's primary campaigns. Here's a clip from The Guardian that I found very interesting and disturbing. I thought the reporter did a marvelous job of asserting herself with grace and dignity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/video/2008/jan/08/obama

The video is a little long, but it's quite good. I recommend it.

Laura

Pages